# Educational Media Co. at Virginia Tech, Inc. v. Insley

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 25, 2013 · 731 F.3d 291

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521718

## Case

- **Full name:** EDUCATIONAL MEDIA COMPANY AT VIRGINIA TECH, INCORPORATED; Cavalier Daily, Incorporated, the Cavalier Daily, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J. Neal INSLEY, Commissioner, Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission; Sandra C. Canada, Commissioner, Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission; W. Curtis Coleburn, III, Chief Operating Officer Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; Frank Monahan, Director, Law Enforcement Bureau of the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; Bryan M. Rhode, Commissioner, Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, Defendants-Appellees. Washington Legal Foundation; Student Press Law Center; College Newspaper Business and Advertising Managers; Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression; The Media Institute, Amici Supporting Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 25, 2013
- **Citations:** 731 F.3d 291; 41 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2525; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19610; 2013 WL 5345772
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Shedd
- **Judges:** King, Shedd, Thacker
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521718

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing, in a case not involving the prison context, that the "difference between a facial challenge and an as-applied challenge lies in the scope of the constitutional inquiry," with the first focusing on the policy "without regard" to its impact on the plaintiff, and the …
- declining to determine whether strict scrutiny applied because the challenged regulation failed Central Hudson's intermediate scrutiny

## Opinion text

SHEDD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
When this case was first before us on the college newspapers’ facial challenge under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 , 100 S.Ct. 2343 , 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980), we explained why 3 Va. Admin. Code § 5-20-40 (A)(2) was a reasonable fit to Virginia’s interest in combating underage and abusive drinking on college campuses, see Educ. Media Co. at Va. Tech, Inc. v. Swecker, 602 F.3d 583, 590-91 (4th Cir.2010). The record, and my view of the regulation, have not changed.
Virginia has devised a comprehensive, multifaceted approach to combat what is acknowledged to be a serious problem-underage and abusive drinking, as well as the associated problems of increased fatal and nonfatal motor vehicle crashes, vandalism, suicide attempts, homicide, non-motor vehicle-related injuries, sexual violence, and unprotected sexual encounters. See J.A. 325. For example, officials at the University of Virginia have undertaken alcohol-education efforts aimed at first-year students, underage students, student athletes, fraternity and sorority members, and the University community in general. See J.A. 214-18, 239-44. Similar efforts have been made at Virginia Tech. See J.A. 115— 212.
This comprehensive plan adopted by Virginia only minimally impacts commercial speech by attempting to limit advertising aimed at a targeted market which includes a substantial percentage of readers for whom use of the product is illegal. Virginia’s approach does not prohibit all advertising for alcohol which will reach this audience; it is a minor limitation on such advertising in college newspapers as *303 part of a comprehensive plan to address a very serious problem.
Therefore, I believe that § 5-20-40(A)(2) is a reasonable fit to the state’s goal of reducing underage and abusive drinking. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521718. Public record. Not legal advice.